King’s Research Portal

Transcription

King’s Research Portal
DOI:
10.1111/jsm.12294
Link to publication record in King's Research Portal
Citation for published version (APA):
Veale, D., Eshkevari, E., Read, J., Miles, S., Troglia, A., Phillips, R., Echeverria, L. M. C., Fiorito, C., Wylie, K., &
Muir, G. (2014). Beliefs about Penis Size: Validation of a Scale for Men Ashamed about Their Penis Size. The
journal of sexual medicine, 11(1), 84-92[N/A]doi: 10.1111/jsm.12294
Page numbers
When referring to this paper, please check the page numbers in the published version and cite these.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 11. Sep. 2014
BELIEFS ABOUT PENIS SIZE
1
Beliefs about penis size: validation of a
scale for men ashamed about their penis
size
David Veale1, Ertimiss Eshkevari1, Julie Read1, Sarah
Miles1, Andrea Troglia1, Rachael Phillips1, Lina Carmona2,
Chiara Fiorito2, Kevan Wylie3, Gordon Muir2
1
NIHR Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental
Health at the South London and Maudsley NHS
Foundation Trust and The Institute of Psychiatry, Kings
College London
2
King's College Hospital, London
3
Porterbrook Clinic, Sheffield
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Published in: Journal of Sexual Medicine. First published online: 30 SEP
2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12294
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr David Veale, Centre for Anxiety
Disorders, The Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AZ , UK (e-mail:
[email protected]).
2
Abstract
Introduction: No measures are available for understanding beliefs in men who
experience shame about the perceived size of their penis. Such a measure might be
helpful for treatment planning, and measuring outcome after any psychological or
physical intervention. Aim: Our aim was to validate a newly developed measure,
called the Beliefs about Penis Size Scale (BAPS). Method: 173 male participants
completed a new questionnaire consisting of 18 items to be validated and developed
into the BAPS, as well as various other standardised measures. An urologist also
measured actual penis size. Main outcome measures: The BAPS was validated against
six psychosexual self-report questionnaires as well as penile size measurements.
Results: Exploratory factor analysis reduced the number of items in the BAPS from
18 to 10, which was best explained by one factor. The 10-item BAPS had good
internal consistency and correlated significantly with measures of depression, anxiety,
body image quality of life, social anxiety, erectile function, overall satisfaction and
the importance attached to penis size. The BAPS was not found to correlate with
actual penis size. It was able to discriminate between those who had concerns or were
dissatisfied about their penis size and those who were not. Conclusions: This is the
first study to develop a scale for measurement of beliefs about penis size. It may be
used as part of an assessment for men who experience shame about the perceived size
of their penis and as an outcome measure after treatment. The BAPS measures various
manifestations of masculinity and shame about their perceived penis size including
3
internal self-evaluative beliefs; negative evaluation by others; anticipated
consequences of a perceived small penis and extreme self-consciousness.
Introduction:
Penis size shame (also known as “small penis syndrome”) is found in men
who have a normal-sized penis but experience shame about its size. The medical
definition excludes men who have a micropenis (1), which is a penis <7.5 cm in the
erect length or <4cm in the flaccid state (2).
Men tend to view penis size as much more important than women do (3).
There is an astonishing lack of scientific interest in the psychology of male penis size
or its treatment. Tiggemann, Martins (4) surveyed 200 men, and found that they were
concerned primarily about body weight, penis size and height. In addition, weight,
muscularity, height and penis size were related to overall appearance and self-esteem.
They identified at least three dimensions on which aspects of the body may
potentially differ: visibility, the ability to control the body part, and signifier of
masculinity. Compared to body weight, for example, the penis can of course be
hidden on most occasions. However, there is little control over penis size and it is
strongly associated with masculinity and sexual prowess.
The experience of shame about the size of the penis seems especially relevant
in some men. Gilbert and Andrews (5),Gilbert (6) suggest that shame consists of an
inner experience of self as an unattractive social agent, or undesirable, which is under
pressure to limit possible damage via escape or appeasement. Men with penis size
shame appear to be fearful of negative evaluation, rejection or humiliation by others
(for example in a changing room or by a sexual partner). This would be regarded as
external shame in which men commonly respond by performance anxiety, submissive
4
and avoidance behaviour. Internal shame would refer to one’s own self-evaluation
about being abnormal or defective in penis size. Some men are very specific in their
aesthetic standards (for example a desire for their penis to be symmetrical on both
sides) without any fear of negative evaluation by others (7, 8).
Some men with shame about the size of their penis may be diagnosed with
Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) (9, 10), where the preoccupation is focussed on
their genitals (11, 12). It is not known how many men with shame about their penis
size also meet the criteria for BDD. Some surgical studies have described men as
having “penile dysmorphic disorder” but these were not reported as based on any
structured diagnostic interview or scale (13, 14).
In clinical practice, sexual health physicians, urologists, counsellors and
psychotherapists may assess men whose penis size is within the normal range, but
who may be seeking a surgical procedure to increase the length or girth of their penis.
However, most men may be too ashamed and may rather seek help and seek solutions
on the Internet. These include visiting sites that promote lotions, exercises or penile
extenders. There are no case series or controlled trials of any psychological
intervention for men experiencing shame about their penis size, other than an outcome
of preventing surgery (15)4(16). There is no standardized, psychometrically validated
measure of beliefs about penis size (17). Such a measure might assist in understanding
the condition or for treatment planning (18). This involves having a good
understanding of the beliefs that motivate an individual. Previous studies have utilized
a range of outcomes such as non-standardized satisfaction scales (19, 20).
Aims:
The aim of this study was therefore to develop and validate a measure of
beliefs about perceived penis size that will be useful for assessment, treatment
5
planning, and measuring outcomes. From an understanding of shame outlined above,
we hypothesised that the new scale might have two factors relating to internal and
external shame.
Methods
Participants:
Men were recruited from three sources (a) staff and students at King’s College
London (n =108), (b) the Mind Search1 database at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings
College London (n =27) and (c) a link on the website “Embarrassing Bodies” (n =
38). In total, 173 participants from a non-clinical population completed the
questionnaires. The demographic data are shown in Table 1. Of these participants, 46
agreed to attend a urology clinic at King’s College Hospital, to have the size of their
penis measured.
Participants were categorised depending on whether they expressed concern over their
penis size (see Table 1). Pearson’s Chi-square was calculated across groups,
comparing marital status, employment status, education level, ethnicity, and sexual
orientation.
Procedure:
We sought in our email to recruit men to a study that was interested in understanding
their beliefs and fears about their penis size. We stated that we were interested in
1
This database contains details for over 3,500 individuals in the local community who
have volunteered to participate in psychological or psychiatric research
6
recruiting men for the first study whether they were concerned or not concerned about
their penis size. In order to take part, male participants had to be aged 18 or above and
proficient in English in order to provide consent and complete the questionnaires
online for the first part of the study. They were also invited to participate in a second
part of the study, which involved measuring the size of their penis (flaccid and erect)
by an urologist in a hospital outpatient clinic. On arrival, participants completed a
consent form, and were then given privacy in an air-conditioned consulting room at a
constant temperature (21°C) at sea level. Then, using a disposable tape measure, each
participant had three parameters measured: circumference (girth) of the penile
mid shaft; length from suprapubic skin to distal glans (skin-to-tip); and pubis to distal
glans (bone-to-tip). The three measurements were recorded in the stretched flaccid
state, grasping the glans and exerting a stretching force until the patient felt mild
discomfort to obtain maximum stretch.
After the flaccid measurements were taken, each participant was offered the choice of
watching pornography on a laptop provided. Watching pornography was either
accepted and chosen privately and anonymously, or declined. At this point the
urologist left the room. Participants pressed a digital bell to alert the urologist when
they were erect and ready to repeat the measurements. Three men required an intracavernous injection of 10 micrograms of Prostaglandin E1 in order to sustain an
erection. The three measurements were then repeated in the fully erect state without
stretching. Participants were given a £10 shopping voucher to thank them for their
time for participating in each part of the study. All participants completed the
following questionnaires online.
7
Measures:
1. Beliefs about Penis Size (BAPS)
The statements in the new scale were generated from an initial item pool of 18 items
based on clinical interviews and case reviews of 8 men who were preoccupied and
anxious about their penis size (and whose sizes were in the normal range). A process
of iteration occurred so that both men who were ashamed about their penis size and
clinicians reviewed the items and the wording was accordingly modified. It was then
pilot tested before the final version was used for the study. The final items are listed
in Table 2. The respondent is asked to rate how strongly he agrees or disagrees with
each of the statements, using a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (“Strongly disagree”) to 4
(“Strongly agree”). The possible range of the final version is 0-40. A higher score
therefore represents a greater level of shame about penis size.
2. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) (21)
The 14 items corresponding to the depression and anxiety subscales from the HADS
were used to examine the severity of anxiety and depression symptoms. Each subscale
is comprised of seven items and higher scores represent increased severity of anxiety
and depression. Cronbach’s alpha values for the anxiety subscale (0.86) and
depression subscale (0.83) were acceptable.
3. Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) (22)
The SPIN is a 17 item self-report scale that measures the severity of performance and
social anxiety. None of the items is specific to sexual situations. Each item is rated by
the participant on a 5-point Likert scale. The possible range of scores is 0 (not at all)
8
to 4 (extremely). Higher scores represent increased severity of social phobia.
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95, indicating high internal reliability.
4. Body Image Quality of Life Inventory (BIQLI) (23)(24)
The BIQLI is a 19-item self-report scale that measures the impact of body image
concerns on a broad range of life domains (for example, social functioning, sexuality,
emotional well-being). Each item is rated by the participant on a 7-point Likert Scale,
ranging from -3 (very negative effect) to + 3 (very positive effect). The BIQLI is
scored as an average numeric score of the 19 items where a more negative score
reflects a more negative body image. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97.
5. International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) (25)
The IIEF is a 15 item self-report scale that has five subscales: erectile function (range
1-30), orgasmic function (range 0-10), sexual desire (range 2-10), intercourse
satisfaction (range 0-15), and overall satisfaction (range 2-10). Across all 5 subscales,
a higher score indicates higher erectile function and sexual satisfaction. For all 5
subscales, internal reliability is high, ranging from a minimum Chronbach’s alpha
value of 0.87 (sexual desire), to a maximum of 0.94 (erectile function, intercourse
satisfaction, and total IIEF score).
7. Overall satisfaction with penis size
Participants were asked to rate a single item “Overall how satisfied are you with the
size and appearance of your penis?” They answered the question on a 9-point rating
9
scale from 0 (“not at all”) to 8 (“extremely”). The higher the score, the greater the
overall satisfaction a participant felt with the size or appearance of their penis.
8. Importance attached to penis size
Participants were asked to rate their degree of conviction on a scale between 0-100%
as to how strongly they believed the phrase “Size does not matter”. Higher scores
indicated less importance placed on penis size.
9. Concerns about penis size
Participants were asked, “Do you have any concerns about the size or shape or
appearance of your penis (whether it is erect or not)?” and classified as either
concerned or not concerned.
Statistical Analysis
Horn’s Parallel Factor Analysis (26) was performed to examine factorial validity of
the BAPS. This was performed with the factor analysis programme ‘FACTOR’ (27).
This method is chosen as it is more accurate than Cattell’s scree and Kaiser-Guttman
methods (28, 29). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is reported to verify the sampling
adequacy for the analysis of the correlational matrix. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity
is used to determine whether correlations between items were sufficiently large for
factor analysis. Excessive correlation was measured by the determinant of the matrix
which should be > 0.00001.
The internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. Spearman’s rho
correlation was used between the scales to test convergent validity. The validity of
10
group differences on the BAPS was determined by the response to the item on
whether they were concerned about the size of their penis.
Results
Item Reduction and Factor Analysis
There were 12 participants with missing data who were excluded from the exploratory
factor analysis, resulting in n = 161 participants. We attempted to extract two
components (hypothesising internal and external shame as the two factors), using
optimal implementation of Parallel Analysis (PA) procedure for determining the
number of dimensions in the original pool of 18 items. We used Principal
Components Analysis and Direct Oblimin rotation. Analysis of the Mardia's (30)
multivariate asymmetry found that the data were not normally distributed
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov: 0.16, p=0.00, skewness corrected for small sample: 3931.323,
df = 1140, p = 1.00 and kurtosis = 46.675, p < .0001). Therefore the polychoric
analysis was run. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for factor analysis
and that communality was > .3 for all items (Table 2). One factor was too small with
two items (10, 15) and one of these was a complex loading of > .4 on both factors
(Table 3). Furthermore because the correlations of the covariance matrix between
several items were excessive (> 0.8), the determinant of the matrix was too high. The
explained variance based on Eigenvalues also suggested one factor with one variable
with an Eigenvalue of 13.3 that accounted for 74% of the variance. Eight items were
eliminated to ensure that the determinant of the matrix was high enough. This final
10-item solution was retained for further analyses (Table 4). All items had a
11
communality of > 0.3. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity were sufficiently large. There was only one variable with an Eigen value
greater than 1 explaining 69.8% of the variance.
Reliability - Internal Consistency
Internal consistency for the BAPS was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95
indicating good internal consistency.
Validity – Concurrent and Discriminant
Concurrent validity was analysed through Spearman’s Rho correlations with related
measures. We examined the relationship between the BAPS and the HADDepression, HAD-Anxiety, SPIN, BIQL, IIEF subscales, overall satisfaction and the
importance of penis size (see Table 4). The BAPS measure was significantly
correlated with all the other psychological measures, indicating strong concurrent
validity. There was strong correlation with overall satisfaction with size and the
importance attached to penis size; moderate correlation with HAD Anxiety and HAD
Depression, SPIN, BIQL and IIEF erectile function and overall satisfaction; and low
correlation with the remaining subscales of the IIEF. The weakest correlation was
with IIEF Orgasmic function and IIEF Sexual desire.
The range of the participants penis size was 70 to 180mm (flaccid length); 100200mm (erect length); 70-130mm (flaccid girth) and erect girth (90-170mm). The
BAPS scores were not significantly correlated with either penis length in a flaccid
bone to tip non-stretched measure (rs = -.19, R2 = 0.38, p = 0.21), or erect state (rs = .25, R2 = 0.5, p = 0.10). In addition, BAPS scores were not significantly correlated
12
with penis girth in a flaccid (rs = -.26, R = .07, p = .08) or erect state (rs = .01, R =
.000121, p =.94).
Validity – Group Differences
There were no significant differences in the demographics between the two
groups, except age (men with concerns about penis size were older) and an
association between sexual orientation (homosexual or bisexual men were more likely
to have concerns about penis size (χ2 (1) = 5.26, p<.05).
The total BAPS score was significantly higher in the group that expressed
concern about their penis size (Median = 19, IQR = 15) compared to the group that
did not express any concern (Median = 0, IQR = 7.5) (U = 646.00, Z = -9.24, p<. 001,
d = -1.96).
Participants were also categorised according to whether they were satisfied
with their penis size or not. Of the 173 participants, 30% (n=52) had rated their
satisfaction with the size of their penis scoring between 0 and 2, and were considered
dissatisfied with their penis size. In comparison, 35.2%(n=61) rated their penis
satisfaction as scores 6 to 8, which were considered satisfied. BAPS scores in those
satisfied with their penis size and appearance were significantly lower (Median = 2,
IQR = 7) than those who were not satisfied (Median = 24, IQR= 11) (U = 48.00, Z = 8.89, p<0.001, d = -1.85.)
Conclusions
This is the first study to develop a scale for measurement of beliefs about penis size
(BAPS). Exploratory factor analysis reduced the number of items in the BAPS from
13
18 to 10, and the variance could be best explained by one factor. We were able to
demonstrate that the 10-item measure had good internal consistency, with a high
Cronbach’s alpha. It correlated significantly with the HAD Depression, HAD
Anxiety, Body Image Quality of Life, Social Anxiety, all the IIEF subscales, overall
satisfaction, and the importance attached to size of the penis. Of note, the weakest
correlation was with two IIEF subscales “Orgasmic function” and “Sexual desire”
which we would not expect to be affected by shame about penis size.
The BAPS was able to discriminate between those who had concerns about their size
and those who did not. We did not match the demographics of both groups, though
those who were concerned or dissatisfied with the size of their penis had higher
likelihood of being older, homosexual or bisexual. Compared to heterosexual men,
homosexual men are at greater risk of body dissatisfaction(31, 32). They are also
exposed to more opportunities to compare their size with other men. Future studies
will be required to determine if homosexuality is a risk factor for development of
shame about penis size (33-35).
The BAPS therefore measures various manifestations of masculinity and shame about
penis size. It can provide practitioners with an understanding of their patient’s beliefs
about their penis size. Two of the items measure internal self-evaluative beliefs (such
as being “abnormal”). There are three items that describe a social cognitive
component with predictions such as being talked about by others. There are four items
on anticipated consequences of a small penis size such as having to avoid situations
where they may be naked. Lastly there are two items on extreme self-consciousness –
for example the belief that others will be able to see the size of their penis even when
14
they are not naked. The scale was not able to separate internal or external shame in
our sample presumably because the two constructs overlap in the majority of men.
That is, if a man believes that he is abnormal in his penis size then he is likely also to
believe that others will evaluate him negatively and may reject or humiliate him.
Of note is that the BAPS was not correlated with actual penis size. This is consistent
with previous research in body image that has found that there is no relationship
between objective unusualness of a body feature and psychological distress (36),(37).
This may help in psycho-education for men to know that there is no relationship
between shame about size and the actual size. Thus there are men with larger penis
than average who are ashamed about their size and there are men with smaller than
average size in whom size is not an issue.
Beliefs about penis size, cognitive processes and behaviours are likely to be related in
a model of maintenance and a target for therapy. The BAPS may therefore be one
component of an assessment and would be expected to correlate with the frequency of
avoidance (for example of sexual situations); safety seeking behaviours (for example
comparing penile size to others); compensatory strategies (for example the use of
objects to increase the bulk of the genital area) or cognitive processes (such as worry
and self-focussed attention).
Limitations and Future Directions
The main limitation of this study was the use of a non-clinical population although a
number of participants were significantly distressed and too ashamed to seek help. It
was, however, initially necessary to recruit a large sample to investigate the
psychometric properties of the scale. Future studies will be required to validate the
scale in a clinical setting, in different cultures and in conditions such as Peyronie’s
Disease, hypospadias, and a micropenis (38, 39). In this study we also depended on a
15
simple self-report question on satisfaction and or concerns with penis size to
demonstrate theory consistent group differences.
The scale has not yet been validated for sensitivity to change after any treatment.
However it was able to differentiate between those men who were concerned or
dissatisfied with their penis size and those who were not. Future studies will need to
validate the scale in men who are undergoing a psychological therapy or receiving a
physical treatment. A further limitation is that no test retest reliability has been
conducted and this will also need to be evaluated in future studies. Although we did
not find any correlation between the BAPS and the actual size, our sample size may
be underpowered. Thus we were powered with 46 subjects to detect a moderate
correlation (a rho of 0.4) when the probability of getting a significant result of p <0.05
is 80%. To detect a small correlation of 0.2 then about 200 subjects are required.
Two items in the final scale had a low communality (items 10 and 15). We thought it
was important to retain these two items on clinical grounds, as these items were
nearly identified as a separate factor. These items represent a more severe form of
self-consciousness and avoidance in a minority of men (for example that others will
be able to see their size through their trousers or that they will never be able to have
children).
Beliefs about penis size may be closely correlated with the importance of sexual
performance, about a woman’s insatiable demands and sexual conservatism (41),.
Thus future research might examine the relationships between the BAPS and scales
that measure such beliefs – for example the Sexual Dysfunctional Beliefs
16
Questionnaire (42) or Sexual Beliefs and Information Questionnaire (43) both assess
sexual myths and lack of information about normal sexuality. Lastly the Sexual SelfSchema questionnaire (44) may assess attitudes that are that are associated with
guiding sexual behaviour.
In summary, the current study has therefore conducted an initial validation on a brief
self-report scale that can be used for audit and outcome research in men worried about
their penis size. It is free to download from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/cadat under
“Research”, “Questionnaires”, and “Body Image Questionnaires”. It is of potential
use in treatment planning to identify some of the specific fears and beliefs that may
have been shaped by past experiences.
References
1.
Wylie KR, Eardley I. Penile size and the 'small penis syndrome'. BJU Int.
2007;99:1449-55
2.
Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW. Penile Length in the Flaccid and Erect
States: Guidelines for Penile Augmentation. The Journal of Urology. 1996;156:995-7
3.
Lever J, Frederick DA, Peplau LA. Does Size Matter? Men's and Women's
Views on Penis Size Across the Lifespan. Psychology of Men & Masculinity.
2006;7:129-43
4.
Tiggemann M, Martins Y, Churchett L. Beyond muscles: unexplored parts of
men's body image. J Health Psychol. 2008 Nov;13:1163-72
5.
Gilbert P, Andrews B. Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and
culture: Oxford University Press, USA; 1998.
6.
Gilbert P. Body shame: A biopsychosocial conceptualisation and overview,
with treatment implications. Body shame: Conceptualisation, research and treatment.
2002:3-54
7.
Nugteren HM, Balkema G, Pascal A, Schultz WCMW, Nijman J, van Driel M.
18-year experience in the management of men with a complaint of a small penis.
Journal of sex & marital therapy. 2010;36:109-17
8.
Veale DM, Lambrou C. The importance of aesthetics in body dysmorphic
disorder. CNS Spectrums. 2002;7:429-31
9.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders 4th edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
10.
American Psychiatric A. Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
4th edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
17
11.
Phillips KA, Menard W, Fay C, Weisberg R. Demographic characteristics,
phenomenology, comorbidity, and family history in 200 individuals with body
dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics. 2005;46:317
12.
Veale D, Boocock A, Gournay K, Dryden W, Shah F, Willson R, et al. Body
Dysmorphic Disorder. A survey of fifty cases. British Journal of Psychiatry.
1996;169:196-201
13.
Li C, Kayes O, Kell PD, Christopher N, Minhas S, Ralph DJ. Penile
suspensory ligament division for penile augmentation: indications and results.
European Urology. 2006;49:729-33
14.
Perovic SV, Byun J-S, Scheplev P, Djordjevic ML, Kim J-H, Bubanj T. New
Perspectives of Penile Enhancement Surgery: Tissue Engineering with Biodegradable
Scaffolds. European Urology. 2006;49:139-47
15.
Ghanem H, Glina S, Assalian P, Buvat J. Position Paper: Management of Men
Complaining of a Small Penis Despite an Actually Normal Size. The Journal of
Sexual Medicine. 2012
16.
Shamloul R. Treatment of men complaining of short penis. Urology.
2005;65:1183-5
17.
Davis S, Paterson L, Binik Y. Male genital image: Measurement and
implications for medical conditions and surgical practice. Sexologies. 2011
18.
Veale D, Gournay K, Dryden W, Boocock A, Shah F, Willson R, et al. Body
dysmorphic disorder: A cognitive behavioural model and pilot randomised controlled
trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1996;34:717-29
19.
Gontero P, Di Marco M, Giubilei G, Bartoletti R, Pappagallo G, Tizzani A, et
al. A pilot phase‐II prospective study to test the ‘efficacy’and tolerability of a
penile‐extender device in the treatment of ‘short penis’. BJU international.
2008;103:793-7
20.
Spyropoulos E, Christoforidis C, Borousas D, Mavrikos S, Bourounis M,
Athanasiadis S. Augmentation Phalloplasty Surgery for Penile Dysmorphophobia in
Young Adults: Considerations Regarding Patient Selection, Outcome Evaluation and
Techniques Applied. European Urology. 2005;48:121-8
21.
Zigmond A, Snaith RP. The hospital depression and anxiety scale. Acta
Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361-70
22.
Connor KM, Davidson JRT, Churchill LE, Sherwood A, Weisler RH, FOA E.
Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) New self-rating scale.
The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;176:379-86
23.
Cash TF, Fleming EC. The impact of body-image experiences: Development
of the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory. International Journal of Eating
Disorders. 2002;31:455-60
24.
Hrabosky JI, Cash TF, Veale D, Neziroglu F, Soll EA, Garner DM, et al.
Multidimensional body image comparisons among patients with eating disorders,
body dysmorphic disorder, and clinical controls: A multisite study. Body Image.
2009;6:155-63
25.
Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The
international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for
assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49:822
26.
Horn J. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika. 1965;30:179-85
27.
Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: A computer programme to fit the
exploratory factor analysis model. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and
Computers. 2006;38:88-91
18
28.
Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Comparison of five rules for determining the number
of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin. 1986;99:432-42
29.
Wilson P, Cooper C. Finding the Magic Number. The Psychologist.
2008;21:866-7
30.
Schröder A, Heider J, Zaby A, Göllner R. Cognitive behavioral therapy versus
progressive muscle relaxation training for multiple somatoform symptoms: Results of
a randomized controlled trial Cogn Ther Res. 2013;37:296-306
31.
Siever MD. Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally
acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. J Consult Clin
Psychol. 1994;62:252
32.
Beren SE, Hayden HA, Wilfley DE, Grilo CM. The influence of sexual
orientation on body dissatisfaction in adult men and women. International Journal of
Eating Disorders. 1996;20:135-41
33.
Grov C, Parsons JT, Bimbi DS. The association between penis size and sexual
health among men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
2010;39:788-97
34.
Drummond MJN, Filiault SM. The long and the short of it: Gay men's
perceptions of penis size. Gay and lesbian issues and psychology review. 2007;3:1219
35.
Grov C, Wells BE, Parsons JT. Self-Reported Penis Size and Experiences with
Condoms Among Gay and Bisexual Men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012:1-10
36.
Moss TP. The relationships between objective and subjective ratings of
disfigurement severity, and psychological adjustment. Body image. 2005;2:151-9
37.
Ong J, Clarke A, White P, Johnson M, Withey S, Butler PEM. Does severity
predict distress? The relationship between subjective and objective measures of
appearance and psychological adjustment, during treatment for facial lipoatrophy.
Body Image. 2007;4:239-48
38.
Davis S, Paterson L, Binik Y. Male genital image: Measurement and
implications for medical conditions and surgical practice Sexologies. 2012;21:43-7
39.
Costa RM, Miller GF, Brody S. Women who prefer longer penises are more
likely to have vaginal orgasms (but not clitoral orgasms): implications for an
evolutionary theory of vaginal orgasm. J Sex Med. 2012 Dec;9(12):3079-88.
40.
Zilbergeld B. The new male sexuality. New York: Bantam Books; 1992.
41.
Wincze J, Barlow D. Enhancing sexuality: A problem solving approach.
Client work-book. Santo Antonio, TX: Graywind Publications.; 1997.
42.
Nobre P, Gouveia JP, Gomes FA. Sexual dysfunctional beliefs questionnaire:
An instrument to assess sexual dysfunctional beliefs as vulnerability factors to sexual
problems Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 2003;18:171-204
43.
Adams Jr SG, Dubbert PM, Chupurdia KM, Jones Jr A, Lofland KR,
Leermakers E. Assessment of sexual beliefs and information in aging couples with
sexual dysfunction Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1996;25:249-60
44.
Andersen BL, Cyranowski JM, Espindle D. Men’s sexual self-schema Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;76:645-61
19
20
Table 1: Frequency distributions of demographic variables
Demographic
Variables
N
Age (median, IQR)
Total
Frequency
(%)
173
28 (17)
Frequency
with
concerns
about penis
size (%)
93 (54%)
27 (15)
Frequency
without
concerns
over penis
size (%)
79 (46%)
24 (9)
Statistic
U=2971, Z=-2.16,
p=.03*, d=0.41
Marital status
Single
Married
Separated / Divorced
Widowed
Employment
Unemployed
Self-employed/
Employed
Student (full-time)
Long-term sick leave
Education level
GCSE /CSE /O-level
NVQ
A-level
Other (e.g. Diploma)
University degree
Postgraduate
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Homosexual/ Bisexual
21
118 (68)
50 (29)
5 (3)
0 (0)
60 (65)
29 (31)
4 (4)
0 (0)
57 (72)
21 (27)
1 (1)
0 (0)
18 (11)
50 (29)
11 (12)
32 (34)
7 (9)
18 (23)
99 (58)
4 (2)
46 (49)
3 (3)
53 (67)
1 (1)
6 (4)
7 (4)
52 (30)
17 (10)
53 (31)
37 (21)
5 (5)
4 (4)
25 (27)
10 (12)
27 (29)
21 (23)
1 (1)
3 (4)
27 (34)
7 (9)
25 (32)
16 (20)
120(70)
52(30)
58(62)
35(38)
62(78)
17(22)
Fisher’s Exact Test
p=.45
p=.15
p=.70
p=.03*
Table 2. Sequence of factor analyses to obtain final 10 item scale
Iteration
Items
Factors
KMO
Index
1
18
2
0.96136
Bartlett’s
test of
Sphericity
2
χ =
3651.6
df = 153
Determinant of the
matrix
Items
eliminated *
0.000000000044261
Nil
2
18
1
0.96136
3
12
1
0.93287
22
p = .00001
2
χ =
3651.6
df = 153
p = .00001
2
χ =
1969.2
df = 66
p = .00001
0.000000000044261
Nil
0.000003080009135
I will be
humiliated by a
partner
I will never be
able to sexually
satisfy a partner
I will be
rejected by a
partner
I will never be
able to enjoy a
sexual
relationship
I will not feel
masculine
enough
I will feel
unattractive
4
10
1
0.91790
2
χ =
1513.4
df = 45
p = .00001
0.000060556627830
I will be
humiliated by a
partner
I will never be
able to sexually
satisfy a partner
I will have a
partner who is
less attractive
than I would
like
I will be
rejected by a
partner
I will never be
able to stop
thinking about it
I will never be
able to enjoy a
sexual
relationship
23
I will not feel
masculine
enough
I will feel
unattractive
* items eliminated because of too high a correlation between the items on the
covariance matrix
Table 3: Initial exploratory factor analysis (loadings lower than 0.3 omitted).
Item
Factor 1
1. I will be alone and without a partner
0.31
2. I will be humiliated by a partner
0.83
Factor 2
0.31
24
3. I will be laughed at by a partner in a sexual situation
0.91
4. I will never be able to sexually satisfy a partner
0.94
5. I will have a partner who is less attractive than I would like
0.71
6. I will be rejected by a partner
0.84
7. I will never be able to stop thinking about it
0.90
8. I will never be able to enjoy a sexual relationship
0.87
9. I will not feel masculine enough
0.97
10. I will not be able to have children
0.86
11. I will never feel just “right”
0.89
12. I will not be able to be naked in front of other men
(e.g. in changing rooms or the bedroom)
13. I will not be able to be naked in front of women
0.94
14. Others will talk or laugh about my penis
0.95
15. Others will be able to see the size or shape of my penis
even when I have my trousers on
16. I will feel self-conscious in sexual situations
0.41
17. I will feel abnormal
0.83
18. I will feel unattractive
0.86
0.84
0.5
0.89
Table 4: Final 10 item scale based on 1 factor
Item
Factor 1
Communality
1. I will be alone and without a partner
0.82
0.67
25
3. I will be laughed at by a partner in a sexual situation
0.88
0.78
10. I will not be able to have children
0.57
0.32
11. I will never feel just “right”
0.87
0.76
12. I will not be able to be naked in front of other men
(e.g. in changing rooms or the bedroom)
13. I will not be able to be naked in front of women
0.77
0.60
0.86
0.75
14. Others will talk or laugh about my penis
0.88
0.78
15. Others will be able to see the size or shape of my penis
even when I have my trousers on
16. I will feel self-conscious in sexual situations
0.68
0.46
0.85
0.72
17. I will feel abnormal
0.92
0.85

King’s Research Portal

Transcription

Similar documents

Buried Penis

DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS Pediatric Urology

presentation

Erectile Dysfunction Causes & Treatments for Active Seniors

Knox Publishing UK MAIL ORDER DIRECT Introducing The Sexual Health Title From

Document 6481951

Circumcision/Penis Surgery Post-Operative Instructions

File

A penis by any other name is still a